Archive for the ‘War’ Category

Owning firearms is a First Amendment exercise, too!

February 8, 2013

By Alan Gottlieb

Following the hysteria generated by gun prohibitionists in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, a nationwide rush on gun stores began as citizens bought semiautomatic modern sporting rifles, handguns and ammunition, in effect “making a political statement” about proposals to ban such firearms.

Making political statements is what the First Amendment is all about.

The so-called “assault rifle” has become a symbol of freedom and the right of the people to speak out for the entire Bill of Rights. Banning such firearms, which are in common use today, can no longer be viewed exclusively as an infringement on the Second Amendment, but must also be considered an attack on the First Amendment.

Many people now feel that owning a so-called “assault rifle” without fear of government confiscation defines what it means to be an American citizen. Their backlash against knee-jerk extremism is a natural reaction to overreaching government.

What should one expect in response to this heightened rhetoric and legislative hysteria? Citizens in other countries react differently to government intrusion into their lives, but Americans are uniquely independent. Among firearms owners, talk of gun bans and attempts to limit one’s ability to defend himself or herself against multiple attackers by limiting the number of rounds they can have in a pistol or rifle magazine turns gun owners into political activists.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) did not intend her gun ban proposal to cause skyrocketing sales of semiautomatic rifles and pistols, but that’s what happened. She must live with the consequences of her shameless political exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy.

President Barack Obama never envisioned the rush to purchase rifle and pistol magazines, but telling American citizens they shouldn’t have something is like sending a signal they need to acquire those things immediately.

Vice President Joe Biden never imagined his efforts would result in a tidal wave of new members and contributions to gun rights organizations, making the firearms community stronger and more united in opposition to any assault on the Second Amendment.

Freedom of association is also protected by the First Amendment.

Perhaps they should take a day off and visit the monuments at Lexington and Concord, and reflect on what prompted those colonists to stand their ground. It was the first time in American history that the government moved to seize arms and ammunition from its citizens, and it went rather badly for the British.

Beneath the surface many Americans are convinced that we may be approaching a point when the true purpose of the Second Amendment is realized. Underscoring this is a new Pew Research Center poll that, for the first time, shows a majority (53 percent) of Americans believe the government is a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Exacerbating the situation is a perceived indifference from the administration toward the rights of firearms owners who have committed no crime, but are being penalized for the acts of a few crazy people.

It is time to lower the rhetoric and allow cooler heads to prevail. The demonization of millions of loyal, law-abiding Americans and the firearms they legally own must cease. If we are to have a rational dialogue about firearms and violent crime, we must recognize that the very people who could be most affected have a First Amendment right to be heard.

Recall the words of Abraham Lincoln, who cautioned us more than 150 years ago that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A half-century before him, Benjamin Franklin taught us that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Their spirits are calling to us now.

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Democrats at Feinstein press conference lie to Americans: Of course, that’s what they do best…

January 29, 2013

Congress and the American people:

Today, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pulled out all the stops in holding a press conference to introduce her long-anticipated ban on modern rifles and magazines, including universal registration of all gun sales. And today, you have been fed lies by the same politicians who have been trying to confiscate guns since at least the early 1990’s.

At the conference, Democrats, including Sens. Feinstein, Richard Durban (D-IL), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) , recycled virtually every cynical distortion used by gun ban advocates in their effort to divide and defeat not only Second Amendment supporters, but all freedom-loving Americans.

 

Lies you are being told

“We don’t want your guns”

Durbin and Schumer appealed to hunters and sportsman, saying: “We don’t want to take your guns.” But their histories and the history of the gun control movement say otherwise. These cynical manipulators of tragedy hope you don’t remember 1994, when passage of the Brady Act, and then the ban on semi-automatic firearms, was immediately followed by “Brady II,” a draconian gun ban which would have given the BATF power to search the homes of law-abiding Americans and would have banned most common self-defense handguns and magazines.

In the present proposal, the “one feature” test for semi-automatic firearms could ban even a .22 caliber rifle if it has a “thumbhole” stock. More importantly, the arbitrary magazine capacity limit will apply to defensive handguns, limiting your ability to protect yourself and your family.

The legislative history of Sens. Feinstein, Schumer and Durbin is that they will take what they can get, and they will not stop in going for the rest. If they pass this ban, more will follow and they will go after your hunting rifle or shotgun. These people have been consistent and clear, they want to prohibit law abiding citizens from owning any type firearm.

 

“No right is absolute”

Schumer said these are “reasonable limitations” to your Second Amendment rights because, after all, “no right is absolute.” He argued that our First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn’t allow you to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Apparently, however, this Harvard-educated lawyer is unfamiliar with the concept of “prior restraint.” Prosecuting someone for wrongly yelling “fire” represents prosecution of those who abuse their rights. By contrast, gun control is a restraint on the rights of the law-abiding. If the gun control model were applied to freedom of speech, you would be bound and gagged before entering the theater on the premise that you might yell “fire.”

 

“Only the ‘Gun Lobby’ opposes reasonable measures”

As much as those who would restrict your freedoms want you to believe “the NRA” and the “gun manufacturers” are the only ones opposing restrictive gun control, understand that the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban represents a grass roots movement of millions of law-abiding gun owners, the vast majority of whom don’t earn a dime from this effort, and take time from jobs and families to fight for your civil rights. Ironically, it is the “anti-gun lobby” which actually comprises a small number of well-funded gun ban activists and their paid lobbyists.

 

“You don’t need an AR-15 to go hunting”

Regurgitated by several anti-gun politicians at the press conference, it was most completely expressed by Philadelphia Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who pointed to an AR-15 and said, “You can’t go hunting with something like that…there would be nothing left to eat.”

But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. In drafting the Bill of Rights, the Framers intended it as the last in a series of checks and balances against abuse of government – perhaps, indeed, the sort of abuse President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Feinstein and others are determined to thrust on the American people.

 

“These ‘assault rifles’ are weapons of war”

The guns being targeted by this ban are not “assault rifles,” which are military machine guns virtually unavailable to the public since 1934. Yet Schumer and others repeatedly called the guns “assault rifles” in order to confuse you about the guns they want to ban which, in reality, differ from common hunting guns only by cosmetic features.

 

“If the magazine ban had been in effect, kids would be alive in Newtown today”

So claimed Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy (both D-CT), in a complete absence of any evidence to that effect. Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was reported to carry one hundred magazines, and most active shooters carry multiple firearms, making magazine capacity moot. Moreover, contrary to claims by gun ban advocates, the rate of violent victimization in schools during the period from 1994 to 2004, when the last semi-auto ban was in effect, increased by five-fold.

 

Coalition members reject these lies

The thirty-seven (37) participating organizations of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, representing millions of Second Amendment supporters, reject the lies being told to the American people in order to pass the Feinstein ban.

Some will urge you to “compromise.” The Coalition, however, regards “compromise,” as our opposition defines it, to be a process in which we lose slightly fewer of our rights than under the original proposal. Consequently, any legislation which registers or bans firearms; limits magazine capacity; registers private transactions through NICS; or restricts time, place or manner of self-defense is unacceptable.

Members of Congress who support gun owners by opposing all gun control will, in turn, benefit from support by Coalition organizations. Members of Congress who support gun control by any means, procedural or substantive, will be targeted for defeat by Coalition members. They will be subject to picketing, leaflet drops at events in their districts, phone and mail campaigns, and political action committee opposition. NRA ratings and endorsements will have no impact on Coalition actions.

Do not believe lies promulgated by politicians who exploit tragedy to further their pre-ordained agenda to follow the disarmament path of Britain and Australia. Unlike other countries, the Framers designed our Republic to keep Americans free, and freedom means keeping arms in the hands of the people.

Respectfully,

The National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban

Signatories

 

Also
The latest Knox Report column has been posted at WND.org.
This week Jeff takes a look at the reality of “Assault Weapons.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deadly-assault-weapons-what-are-they/
Deadly “Assault Weapons” – What are They?
These “scary-looking” guns are the very type referenced in the Second Amendment
By Jeff Knox

There’s been a lot of talk recently about “Assault Weapons,” but it seems that many of the people doing the talking don’t know anything at all about guns, and that’s causing confusion.

As an Army-certified Small Arms Repairman and a lifelong firearms owner and enthusiast, I know a little bit about guns and assault rifles, so I’d like to set the record straight about a few things.

First off, the term “Assault Weapon” is a made-up name.  There really is no such thing.  The term was coined by some firearm marketers back in the 1970s to describe military-looking, semi-auto firearms.  Anti-gun extremists recognized it as a catchy and scary term and exploited it for all it was worth.  The term was a play on the valid label “Assault Rifle,” which is a lightweight, selective fire rifle or carbine.  The key there is that term “selective fire,” which means the operator can select either single shot or multi-shot modes of fire.  In other words, a true assault rifle can fire one shot for each trigger pull, or it can fire a burst or string of shots for each trigger pull – machinegun mode.

What Feinstein, Obama, and Holder are calling “assault weapons” are not selective fire.  They are not machineguns, and are not capable of selective fire.  Nor are they easily modified to be able to fire like machineguns.  These guns are semi-auto firearms that fire one round each time the trigger is pulled, just like a typical revolver or semi-auto pistol, or the 100-year old Winchester Model 1907.

Read the full article by clicking here.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/deadly-assault-weapons-what-are-they/ 
This Update was sent from The Firearms Coalition to our friends and supporters.
Please forward to others concerned about retaining their rights.
*** Please make sure we have your ZIP Code so we can better alert you to important issues in your state! ***
*** Just Reply to this message with your ZIP in the Subject line.  Thanks for your help. ***
Your elected servants need to hear from You!
Please contact your elected representatives now – by phone, email, letters, and faxes – and contact them every few days until they get the message.
STOP ALL Infringements on our rights – No gun bans.  No magazine bans.  No government interference in private firearms transactions.
Tell them that Violent Crime – including “gun crime” – has gone down by more than 50% in the past twenty years – while gun ownership and guns in circulation have gone through the roof.  Tell them to stop trying to control guns and instead do a better job of controlling criminals and the criminally insane.
If you agree with the work we’re doing and you’d like to help, there are three things we ask you to do:
First, stay informed and contact your representatives on a regular basis.
Second, join your local grass roots rights organization and help them in protecting your rights.
Third, join The Firearms Coalition for news, updates, and to add your voice to our efforts.  Contributions – of any amount – are  appreciated.
  
You can contribute online with PayPal or a credit card at www.FirearmsCoalition.org, or you can drop us a check – or just a $5 bill at PO Box 1761, Buckeye, AZ  85326.  If you see value in the work we do, please help us out.  We’ll do our best to give you a good return on your investment.  — Jeff
Please forward, post, and circulate this Update.

Civil War no less..?

January 25, 2013

Within the last two weeks the forces of the progressive, ultra-liberal cabal have managed to amass a coordinated front to attack and render null and void the gun rights of average citizens as protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun rights enthusiasts say that such actions will provoke civil war.

Today, these forces appear to be simultaneously unleashing their attack on all fronts, from attempting to prevent citizens from gaining access to brass for the purpose of making their own ammunition to the push by leftwing extremists to bully banks into refusing to give loans to gun manufacturers, effectively putting gun makers out of business.

Further, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced her so-called “assault weapons ban” bill Thursday, which actually bans much more than semiautomatic rifles. The bill goes after handguns, shotguns, and ammunition as well. It also sets a federal limit on the number of rounds each citizen can legally possess.

Gun rights groups across the country, which are not known for extremism but for representing citizens from every walk of life, from Democrat to Republican, liberal to conservative, the non-religious to Christian, have warned repeatedly that should the federal government launch this type of attack on the gun rights of citizens, outright civil war would ensue.

That warning was no mere idle threat. The citizens in the heartland are angry, fired up, and ready to defend their Constitution and their rights. The battle lines are being drawn now. This nation stands closer to armed conflict between its own citizens as never before since the Civil War of the 1860s.

The laws being proposed currently will automatically criminalize millions of law-abiding citizens who own the types of guns the government wishes to ban. For example, the handgun of choice for most women and homeowners are the semiautomatic variety made by Sig Sauer, Kel-Tec, and other brands that fire multiple rounds quickly.

And if citizens refuse to comply like sheep with the direct tyrannical assault on our rights, apparently the Obama administration has every intention of using force against our own citizens if they resist turning over their guns and registering the guns they are allowed to keep.

A rumor has been floating around Washington concerning a new mandate the Obama administration allegedly implemented that would require military personnel to state, up front, that they are willing to open fire upon American citizens on our own soil if ordered to do so.

In addition, National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea reported today a most disturbing story out of Fort Drum, N.Y. indicating that the military installation is destroying used ammunition brass, rendering it useless for citizens to purchase in what is known as “reloading” — the practice of making homemade ammunition using expended brass.

The administration attempted this once before and was ordered by Congress to stop. The practice is also against the law, but the installation apparently is still engaging in the practice.

Thus, a united front has amassed on the Left that is determined to shove gun bans, gun registration, and gun and ammo control down the throats of citizens who have always operated under the assumption that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

How many infringements will it take to get clear-headed, patriotic citizens to rise up and demand that the government cease and desist? It appears that such a time has come.

SOURCE

Song of the South: Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.

January 21, 2013

Stolen from Texas Fred.

I do NOT celebrate this *other* so-called holiday. You can celebrate YOUR heroes and holidays as you wish and I will celebrate MINE! I bear no ill will to those that celebrate the *other* holiday, I hope they are open-minded enough to feel the same in return.

Photobucket

Robert Edward Lee (January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870) was a career military officer who is best known for having commanded the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the American Civil War.

350x314px

January 30, 1975, Senate Joint Resolution 23, a joint resolution to restore posthumously full rights of citizenship to General R. E. Lee was introduced into the Senate by Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (I-VA). The resolution was to restore the U.S. citizenship to Robert E. Lee effective June 13, 1865. This resolution was the result of a five year campaign to posthumously restore Robert E. Lee’s U.S. citizenship.

On September 28, 1870, Lee suffered a stroke. He died two weeks later, shortly after 9 a.m. on October 12, 1870, in Lexington, Virginia from the effects of pneumonia.

Here in Texas we take our holidays, traditions and heritage quite seriously.

Full Story

Read the entire story, Fred went way beyond what was needed to present a factual and well written piece.

Epic fail obama pundit get handed her head on national show

January 19, 2013
Gun Owners of America

Gun Owners of America (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Gun Owners of America on MSNBC tells it like it is.

Plus she can’t seem to figure out who she is trying to debate.

In any case the point of the add was that the elites are hypocrites when it comes to their own protection or their families. Whether you agree with more police in schools, armed teachers and principles or not.

http://on.fb.me/ZV4MMi

Not to mention that already they, as in Governor Cuomo and others are already talking about confiscation. In other words, even more ex post facto law. For years I have raged about the insult to our freedoms imposed by the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act’s ex post facto provision. Well, I don’t have any problem with disarming people in the heat of the moment or even for as long as it takes to complete consoling and jail time. But damn it! If you are going to take someones rights away forever then convict them of a felony, period. But no, based upon political correctness and misandry (sexism) they trashed out the Bill of Rights, and that has set the groundwork for even more.

Obama Goes Nuts and Offers Anti-gunners Wish List

January 18, 2013
Most of his crazy proposals are so extreme,
only few of his initiatives pose serious threat
Surrounded by child-props, Barack Obama yesterday proposed a semi-automatic ban so extreme that it could potentially outlaw up to 50% of all long guns in circulation and up to 80% of all handguns.
Originally, Obama’s allies had announced they would reintroduce the 1994 ban on commonly-owned, defensive firearms.  That was until they found out that they would look like fools, since that semi-auto ban was largely the law of Connecticut on the day the Newtown shooting occurred — and didn’t cover Adam Lanza’s AR-15.  After that, gun grabbers just kept adding more and more guns until they would register (or ban) a huge percentage of the defensive guns in existence.
So where are we now?
Obama’s crazy gun ban is now being denounced by many Democrats. And, although you don’t “pop the cork” until Congress adjourns, it will probably take the magazine ban down the toilet with it.
This means that gun owners’ focus must now shift to the part of Obama’s agenda which poses the most danger because it is most likely to move:  the requirement that the government approve every gun transfer in America — the so-called universal background check.
All of you know why this is a problem.  But how do you explain it so simply that even a congressman can understand?  Let’s take a crack at that:
ONE:  THE FBI‘S “SECRET LIST” WHICH IS BEING USED TO BAR AMERICANS FROM OWNING GUNS IS INSIDIOUS
The FBI’s database currently contains the names of more than 150,000 veterans.  They served their country honorably.  They did nothing wrong.  But, because they sought counseling for a traumatic experience while risking their lives for America, they have had their constitutional rights summarily revoked, with no due process whatsoever.
You want to know something else?  The “secret list” could soon include tens of millions of Americans — including soldiers, police, and fire fighters — with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and even post-partem depression.  This would be achieved under the 23 anti-gun “executive actions” that Obama announced yesterday.
TWO:  THE FBI REFUSES TO INSURE US THAT IT ISN’T TURNING ITS “SECRET LIST” INTO A NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY
Our legislative counsel drafted the Smith amendment in 1998 to prohibit the FBI from using the Brady Check system to tax gun buyers or put their names into a gun registry.  But the FBI refuses to tell us — or even to tell U.S. Senators — how (or whether) it is complying with the Smith amendment.  Why in the world should we give the FBI more authority and more names if it abuses the authority it already has?
This is the inherent problem with any background check, where gun buyers’ names are given to a government bureaucrat.  Is there any way to make sure that once a name is entered into a computer, that it doesn’t stay there permanently?
This concern is especially valid, considering how federal agents are already skirting the laws against gun owner registration.  Several dealers around the country have informed GOA that the ATF is increasingly going into gun shops and just xeroxing all of the 4473’s, giving them the names of every gun owner who purchased a gun through that shop — and setting up the basis for a national registration system.
This is illegal under the 1986 McClure-Volkmer law, but that has apparently not stopped it from being done.  If every gun in America has to go through a dealer, this will create a mechanism to compile a list of every gun owner in America.  And, as we have seen with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has just been legislatively handed such a list, when that happens, the talk immediately turns to “confiscation.”
THREE:  AS A RESULT, REQUIRING GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF EVERY GUN OWNER IN AMERICA WOULD DO NOTHING BUT CREATE A PLATFORM FOR NATIONAL GUN REGISTRATION AND CONFISCATION.
As alluded to above, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo now has a comprehensive gun registry.  This is the most dangerous thing that New York legislators could have done — as Cuomo has made it clear he’s considering gun confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms.
“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said.  “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”
How nice.  He’ll let gun owners “permit” their guns for now — so that, presumably, they can be confiscated later, just as certain defensive weapons were confiscated in New York City during the Mayor David Dinkins administration in 1991.
FOUR:  THE FBI REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW GUARANTEEING THE RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE PURCHASERS
The Brady Law requires that the FBI correct erroneous denials of firearms purchases.  And it requires that it reply, initially, within five days.  According to attorneys familiar with the problem, the FBI NEVER, EVER, EVER complies with the law.  In fact, it increasingly tells aggrieved legitimate purchasers to “sue us” — at a potential cost of tens of thousands of dollars.
FIVE:  EVEN UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE BRADY SYSTEM HAS BROKEN DOWN REPEATEDLY
 
Since its inception, the FBI’s computer systems have often gone offline for hours at a time — sometimes for days.  And when it fails on weekends, it results in the virtual blackout of gun sales at gun shows across the country.
According to gun laws expert Alan Korwin, “With the NICS computer out of commission, the only place you could legally buy a firearm — in the whole country — was from a private individual, since all dealers were locked out of business by the FBI’s computer problem.”
Of course, now the President wants to eliminate that last bastion of freedom!
Recently, the FBI’s system went down on Black Friday, angering many gun dealers and gun buyers around the country.  “It means we can’t sell no damn guns,” said Rick Lozier, a manager at Van Raymond Outfitters in Maine.  “If we can’t call it in, we can’t sell a gun.  It’s cost us some money.”
The bottom line:  Our goal is to insure that Obama’s politicized dog-and-pony show doesn’t produce one word of new gun law.  Not a single word.
And the biggest danger right now is universal background checks — which would create a platform for national registration and confiscation.
We would note that, in addition, Obama is attempting to illegally enact gun control through unlawful and unconstitutional “executive actions.”  Click here to read about these.
ACTION:  Click here to contact your senators and congressman.  Urge them to oppose the universal background check because it is a platform for national firearms registration and confiscation.

‘Obama has dramatically overshot’

January 17, 2013

President Obama outlined several major legislative initiatives that he claims will reduce gun-related violence, but representatives at Gun Owners of America say the proposals will assault Americans’ right to keep and bear arms and do nothing to prevent senseless killings.

The Obama legislative agenda includes several controversial items, starting with universal background checks to make sure guns are not purchased by felons or “someone legally prohibited from buying” a firearm.

Mike Hammond has served in the offices of three U.S. senators and is now general counsel at Gun Owners of America. He said this provision should be opposed on two grounds. His first concern centers around the people Obama thinks should be prohibited from buying guns.

“In about 150,000 cases, we’re talking about veterans who came back from Baghdad or Kabul, perhaps sought counseling for a traumatic experience and, as a result, the Veteran’s Administration appointed a fiduciary to supervise their financial affairs and then sent their names to this secret list in West Virginia that prohibits people from owning guns,” Hammond said. “These people didn’t do anything wrong. They served their country honorably, and there’s no reason they should lose their constitutional rights because they sought someone to counsel them.”

While Hammond fears law-abiding Americans could easily be blocked from exercising their Second Amendment rights, he also claims involving the government in each firearm transaction sets the stage for more heavy-handed actions from Uncle Sam.

“It’s increasingly clear to us that the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are using these secret lists to begin to compile the beginnings of a national gun registry,” Hammond said. “I personally drafted the Smith Amendment, which would prohibit them from using the Brady Check in order to create a national gun registry. But when senators have recently asked the FBI, ‘How are you complying with the Smith Amendment and how long are you keeping the names?’ they’re told to go take a long walk off a short pier. There is a danger that the Obama administration wants to create this gun registry using this universal check. There is no way in heaven’s name that we are going to consider anything like that.”

Hammond said a national gun registry is a slippery slope to government confiscation of weapons once the government knows where they are. He uses recent events in New York state as an example, since Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed new gun-control legislation and then alluded to confiscating firearms that are now deemed illegal.

In pushing for the background check, Obama contended that 40 percent of gun sales have no background checks. Hammond said that statistic is pure fiction.

“They asked the FBI about that and basically the FBI said that the gun-control advocates, for lack of a better term, just pulled that statistic out of their ear,” he said. “I mean they just made that statistic up.”

The biggest congressional fight will likely center around Obama’s call for a ban on assault weapons and his demand that magazines carry a limit of 10 bullets. The president said weapons used in a theater of war should not be brought into a movie theater.

“That is a lie. When I was in the military, I had a weapon that was designed for the theater of war. It was called an M-16 rifle,” Hammond said. “It was a fully automatic rifle. Unless you get a special license from the FBI, you can’t own one of those guns in America. That is an absolute lie.”

“What the AR-15 is is a gun that is designed cosmetically to look like a full automatic but operates nothing like it,” he said.

Hammond also rejects the proposed limit on bullets in a magazine, saying shooters like the ones in Connecticut and Colorado could just as easily have brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and achieved the same horrific response.

Looking at the big picture of the debate, Hammond believes that Obama reached too far in this agenda.

“Obama, in this case, has dramatically overshot. I think he has overshot in a way that is going to destroy his entire gun-control package,” argued Hammond, who said Obama initially leaned toward restoring the ban on semi-automatic weapons that was in effect between 1994-2004. He said that ban didn’t address some of the more recent cosmetic features on guns, like the one used in the Sandy Hook massacre, so the scope of this legislation got much bigger.

“So he began adding more guns and more guns and more guns,” Hammond said. “The people who know what guns are out there tell us that the resulting legislation now will ban probably about 50 percent of the long guns currently in circulation and about 80 percent of the handguns in current circulation. Let me state that again. Barack Obama and his proposals would ban most guns currently in circulation.”

Hammond also rejected the president’s 23 executive actions, particularly the ones that encourage doctors to ask patients about guns and share that information with the government.

THE FULL STORY ON OBAMA’S MASSIVE GUN GRAB:

Poll: Seeds of tyranny present in America

Obama plan: ‘Assault-weapon’ ban, universal background checks

47 states revolt against Obama gun control

Rush Limbaugh: Obama ‘wants people to snap’

‘Obama has dramatically overshot’

Oops! Gun-map hate mail goes to wrong paper

Constitution ‘no impediment’ to Obama

Chicago murders top Afghanistan death toll

Virginia’s solution to guns in school

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-has-dramatically-overshot/#YwDHMA50UIfWr23h.99

Oathkeeper 151: Tells it like it is. No Nuremberg defense allowed!

January 17, 2013

http://youtu.be/8FpLyPP-9LU

In this video, Oathkeeper151, a New Jersey Police Officer who has been a member of Oath Keepers since 2009, makes it clear that he will not obey orders that violate the Bill of Rights. In particular, he says he will not be used as a tool of oppression against the American people who resist and refuse to comply with infringement on their right to bear arms, such as legislation or executive orders that decree they must register, get finger printed and photographed, like a criminal.

He asks his fellow officers what they are going to do if that happens. Will they keep their oaths? Here is his own description of his video:

In this video I ask my fellow Police Officers what they would do, if they were given an unlawful order. I also touch on the Assault Weapons Ban introduced by Senator Feinstein, and how this bill has the potential of putting us Police Officers in a very bad/even fatal predicament.

I spoke to him on the phone and he made it clear that he is not afraid to take this public stand because this is what needs to happen.  He says the peace officers across America need to stand up and let the people know that they are on the side of the Bill of Rights, and that they will protect the rights of the people. In one of the comments on his video, another officer had this to say:

I’ll lay my badge down, stop doing what I love if someone tries to make me do something immoral or unconstitutional. Good video, take care

Oathkeeper151 agrees. He told me that if there were door to door raids for guns against Americans who refused to comply with registration or bans, he would either defend the people with his badge on, stepping between them and the oath breakers doing the raids, or he would lay his badge down on the table and then go join the people in resisting. He loves his work as a police officer, but his oath, and his responsibility to protect the people of his community, is more important than his job. His oath comes first. The rights of the people come first…. and he is not alone.

 

Molon Labe,

Stewart Rhodes

Founder of Oath Keepers

 

Gutting our Second Amendment rights: epic fail obama

January 17, 2013

Modified from an email.

Earlier today, President Obama and his anti-gun pals unveiled their plans to GUT our Second Amendment rights.

The list of new schemes goes on seemingly forever, but the most outrageous are exactly what I’ve been fearing . . .

The gun-grabbers are going for broke, including:

*** RAMMING into law the new Feinstein Gun Ban, and banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Far more draconian than the earlier ban, the new Feinstein Gun Ban and the Magazine Ban demonizes guns for looking “scary” and targets rifles, shotguns and even handguns.

These new bans are NOT likely to include grandfather clauses, and they might even go for out-right confiscation.

*** FORCING through Congress a new national gun registration scheme under the guise of “background checks.”

There’s simply no way to enforce a ban on private transfers without government bureaucrats knowing exactly who owns what weapons.

*** A new “mental health” denial system using “ObamaCare’s” nationalized healthcare system to begin snooping on gun owners.

One Surgeon General estimated 46.4% of Americans will have mental health issues at some point in their lives!

So make no mistake, this is designed EXPLICITLY to allow the federal government to strip ANY law-abiding citizen they want — including military veterans — of their Second Amendment rights on a whim.

In fact, the so-called “mental health” and the “background check” national gun registration system may be where this fight is headed . . .

More than even an outright ban on certain types of firearms, nothing gets anti-gun activists like Sarah Brady more excited than the ability to demonize certain gun features and register and trace guns and gun owners.

That’s because she and her antigun pals — like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — understand these are the first steps toward outright gun confiscation in America.

They’re putting up smoke and mirrors to throw American citizens off track.

But registration, bans and ultimately confiscation are really what President Obama’s “mental health” initiative and his so-called “background check” national gun registration schemes are all about.

So if you want to protect your gun rights, you and I are going to have to be ready for anything.

Please TAKE ACTION NOW and call your Congressman and Senators at 202-224-3121 and demand they oppose Obama’s gun control agenda at every opportunity.

For Freedom,

Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President

Begging for Bucks

There was something in the air that night, the stars were bright Fernando…

January 14, 2013

Can you hear the drums Fernando?
I remember long ago another starry night like this
In the firelight Fernando
You were humming to yourself and softly strumming your guitar
I could hear the distant drums
And sounds of bugle calls were coming from afar

They were closer now Fernando
Every hour every minute seemed to last eternally
I was so afraid Fernando
We were young and full of life and none of us prepared to die
And I’m not ashamed to say
The roar of guns and cannons almost made me cry

There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, Fernando
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, Fernando
Though we never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando

Now we’re old and grey Fernando
And since many years I haven’t seen a rifle in your hand
Can you hear the drums Fernando?
Do you still recall the fateful night we crossed the Rio Grande?
I can see it in your eyes
How proud you were to fight for freedom in this land

There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, Fernando
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, Fernando
Though we never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando

There was something in the air that night
The stars were bright, Fernando
They were shining there for you and me
For liberty, Fernando
Though we never thought that we could lose
There’s no regret
If I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando
Yes, if I had to do the same again
I would, my friend, Fernando…

SOURCE

Something to think about, to say the least.